Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, come on Kevin, lots of systems let you do lots of things that
> aren't legal...
Multiple default routes are legal, and I still think that it is
reasonable to expect that if these were in fact illegal that the code
that maintains the routing table
A system with multiple default routes typically works as follows: if
the routing code is presented with an IP datagram that is not
applicable to any other entry in the route table, then the default
routes are used, typically in a round-robin manner.
Multiple default routes are sometimes useful (
Dot-matrix is indestructible. I still have a 9-pin from Atari, somewhere... :-)
> -Original Message-
> From: Cole Tuininga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Photo printers?
>
>
> On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 14:51, Sco
> I agree with JABR that this is not a good default configuration,
> even if it does work now. You shouldn't have multiple default
> routes unless you KNOW it will work. If the second network is a
> private network that does not route to the Internet, then having
> a default route that goes the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Traditionally, yes. However, Linux done gone and gotten smarter on us and
> creates a default route for each interface. This has been default
> behavior for some time, and I'v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >Are those multiple default routes,
>
> Yes,
>
> >which would be b0rken?
>
> Not under Linux, at least IME with multi-homed systems.
You may have seen systems like that, and n
I use multiple default gateways on many 2.4.x linux systems. They work
fine, and provide decent failover when routers go down for whatever
reason. You may find it useful to contrast that with "ip route show" to
see more details about the routing rules though.
- Marc
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Derek Mar
Smells like iptables or ipchains then. The ssh -v -v -v combined with
tcpdump should provide a pretty good answer for you.
- Marc
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:22:03 EST
> Kevin D. Clark said:
>
> >Can you just humor us and run "ipchains
In a message dated: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:41:00 EST
Michael O'Donnell said:
Dude, you have two default gateways. This is almost always
a problem on Linux boxen, IME. Lose one of them.
>>
>>This is standard when you have 2 interfaces. All my boxes are
>>configured similarly, but this o
In a message dated: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:31:30 EST
Michael O'Donnell said:
>> 0.0.0.0 10.241.38.1 0.0.0.0 UG 40 0 0 eth1
>> 0.0.0.0 192.168.10.10.0.0.0 UG 40 0 0 eth0
>
>Are those multiple default routes,
Yes,
>which would be
In a message dated: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:32:11 EST
Derek Martin said:
>Please try removing one of them. You may need to add a static route
>to the other network. I have seen this cause problems on more than
>one occasion. Removing the extra default route always fixed the
>problem.
I have, it d
In a message dated: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:22:03 EST
Kevin D. Clark said:
>Can you just humor us and run "ipchains --flush" on the system that
>won't respond to pings/ssh connections -- and then try again. (or do
>whatever you have to do to ensure that the target machine isn't
>configured to discar
In a message dated: 12 Dec 2002 15:01:05 EST
Ed Robbins said:
>Paul,
>
>Can you draw a rough diagram of the layout. In your original post you
>refer to them as SystemA, SystemB and SystemC. I find it helpful, to
>know the layout with the addresses.
>Where does 10.241.38.2 come into play? Is
>>> Dude, you have two default gateways. This is almost always
>>> a problem on Linux boxen, IME. Lose one of them.
>
>This is standard when you have 2 interfaces. All my boxes are
>configured similarly, but this one is the one exhibiting problems.
Hmmm. I thought the whole point of a "def
> 0.0.0.0 10.241.38.1 0.0.0.0 UG 40 0 0 eth1
> 0.0.0.0 192.168.10.10.0.0.0 UG 40 0 0 eth0
Are those multiple default routes, which would be b0rken?
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[
In a message dated: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:19:31 EST
Marc Evans said:
>I have seen that happen when a Cisco has packet filters turned on and is
>blocking your ssh attempt.
Unfortunately I don't think it's that easy, since I can ssh to/from
other boxes on this subnet. Additionally, once this syste
In a message dated: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:52:32 EST
Derek Martin said:
>> Dude, you have two default gateways. This is almost always a problem
>> on Linux boxen, IME. Lose one of them.
This is standard when you have 2 interfaces. All my boxes are
configured similarly, but this one is the one e
Can you just humor us and run "ipchains --flush" on the system that
won't respond to pings/ssh connections -- and then try again. (or do
whatever you have to do to ensure that the target machine isn't
configured to discard packets). Doing this on the source machine
would be nice too, just for th
I have seen that happen when a Cisco has packet filters turned on and is
blocking your ssh attempt.
- Marc
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Does this make sense to *anyone*?
>
> This information is from a system currently not responding to pings
> (as described previously in the
Paul,
Can you draw a rough diagram of the layout. In your original post you
refer to them as SystemA, SystemB and SystemC. I find it helpful, to
know the layout with the addresses.
Where does 10.241.38.2 come into play? Is that another multi-homed box
with an interface on the 168.159.36 netw
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 14:51, Scott Prive wrote:
>
>
> Hey Paul,
>
> Epson printers in my experience do not hold up under abuse. Not sure
> how well HP does, but I'm on my third Epson ink-jet in 6 years.
Just to put in my $.02, I still have an Epson LX-80 dot matrix from 1982
that has been in (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Charles Farinella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was doing so well... :-(
>
> Ok, that won't work. I need to scp files to the machine, yet not allow
> the user to execute anything. Any suggestions?
Hey Paul,
Third-party ink packages save you from being locked in to any vendor's ink. However
there is some risk when changing ink brands that something will "gum up". Printhead
cleaning carts are supposed to cure this.
Actually, many inkjets will plain gum up on you if you don't use them fr
Does this make sense to *anyone*?
This information is from a system currently not responding to pings
(as described previously in the thread).
# ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:D0:A8:00:D6:DE
inet addr:192.168.10.11 Bcast:192.168.10.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
> >> Very slick!! This looks like it's going to do just what we need, thanks.
> >
> >
>
> Not to spoil Derek's moment of glory, but I'm curious -
> did you check out that authorized_keys trick? I haven't
> had a chance to fool with it but the exampl
>> When you were born I *did* look 23. Because I was.
>
>Eh, then you're not old yet, but it's creepin' right up on ya... ;-)
WARNING: Dates on calendar are closer than they appear.
>> Very slick!! This looks like it's going to do just what we need, thanks.
>
>
Not to spoil Derek's moment
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Derek Martin wrote:
> > *I* am old, I am surprised that Derek remembers.
>
> Well, I'm not old, but at 32, I'm not exactly young either (even if I
> do look about 23)...
When you were born I *did* look 23. Because I was.
> If this is what you're trying to accomplish, th
In this it might actually help to RTFM for
sshd - I just had a quick look and it appears
that you can mess around with the entries
in $HOME/.ssh/authorized_keys such that no
commands other than one you specify can be
executed. The conditions under which this will
work may be too restrictive for
This may be a time when you might actually want to consider running SSH
chrooted. You could simply restrict what binaries are in the chrooted
directory.
http://www.ssh.com/support/faq/secureshellserver/qa_191_687.html
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 11:08, Charles Farinella wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002
In a message dated: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:06:48 EST
Charles Farinella said:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Travis Roy wrote:
>
>>
>> > > Sorry
>> > > Charlie. =8^) (Remember those old StarKist ads?)
>> >
>> > I should have known. And yes I remember those ads very well,
>> > thanks. :-)
>>
>> I don'
In a message dated: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:29:42 EST
"Tom Buskey" said:
>I ended up getting a laser printer. No waiting. 99% of my printing
>doesn't involve color.
I have an HP Laser for b&w printing. I'm specifically looking for
something to do color/photo-quality printing.
The problem I'm t
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, at 10:06am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I think I've solved my problem by removing the path statement from
> > .bash_profile for the user in question, so that we can scp files to the
> > account, but the user can run no commands.
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, at 10:06am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think I've solved my problem by removing the path statement from
> .bash_profile for the user in question, so that we can scp files to the
> account, but the user can run no commands.
If the user specifies the exact path to the comman
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Travis Roy wrote:
>
> > > Sorry
> > > Charlie. =8^) (Remember those old StarKist ads?)
> >
> > I should have known. And yes I remember those ads very well,
> > thanks. :-)
>
> I don't, you guys must be old ;)
*I* am old, I am surprised that Derek remembers. I think
34 matches
Mail list logo
